UK says illegal downloaders may lose Web access

UK says illegal downloaders may lose Web access

hosted.ap.org

LONDON (AP) -- People who repeatedly download copyrighted films and music could have their Internet connection cut off under proposed laws to tackle illegal file-sharing unveiled by the British government on Tuesday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I agree with the article when it states that it is asking the ISPs to play internet police. I do not like this new focus on file sharing these days. I only hope that the ISPs will do their part in helping people maintain privacy. It seems that no country is safe from the piracy police these days.

I wonder how much money is spent on going after file sharers. Would it be enough to feed a poor country for a year? I think that the focus on this issue is rediculous. There are far more important issues in the world then weather or not a multi-billion dollar record industry makes a little more cash. As a matter of fact there has been no proof that record sales have or will change with heavier restrictions on downloading.

hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Maybe people wouldn't have to download films and Tv shows illegally if they didn't overprice at the cinema, or actually enabled people to stream the shows themselves at home.

I like to watch some TV shows that take ages to come out in the UK, like Lost, SG-1 etc, so I watched them online (illegally, I suppose).

Had those with the rights actually moved into the 21st century, they would realise they could kill off file-sharing by freeing up access to their media in the first place. Just like they have done with Music. They now allow you to buy single tracks online and cheaply.

Hardly anyone I know illegally downloads music anymore, whereas 5 years ago it was all the rage. Most of us now are watching films instead, as we cannot afford the extortoniate fees for the cinema, or have to wait excessivley long times for it to appear on TV due to archaic licensing agreements.

reply to post by stumason


say what ?

talikg your ` logic ` to its " conclusion "

so because porsche sports cars are so dammed expensive - am i at liberty to go steal one ?

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Fuzzy logic, you have there. Doesn't quite work though.

What I tried to make clear was, considering the huge cost you pay to go to the cinema, why would anybody want to? People obviously are happy to stream movies at home and watch them on their TV's, so why don't the studios allow people to do this?

There are ways that they can protect their product and allow people to do what they obviously want to do. They have done it with music and it as near enough killed off MP3 sharing amongst most people, whereas a few years ago, it was rife.

EDIT: I would have thought my part about TV shows would have made it clear. There are, in existance now, contracts that give certain rights to certain territories.

In the US and France, for example, you can stream the latest South Park episode online from the official source, but in the UK, existing contracts for "old media" broadcast prevent this from happening. In the same vein, this very contract prevents the rights holders from allowing them to stream it themselves.

So no-one, in the UK, can stream South Park, all due to legal technicalties.

Well, I don't really care who signed what and when, I want to watch South park and do not see why the French can and I cannot.

[edit on 25/8/09 by stumason]

Last time i went to the cinema (about a month ago) 1 ticket cost me 6.80. A small-medium bag of maltesers 3.20 - £10.10 in total. Thats come from me working 2 hours on minimum wage.

To go to cinema once a week without buying any rip off food - £27

Cost to download 10 movies? depends who's paying internet and electric bill. The reason file-sharing exists in the first place is because people cannot afford the silly prices they charge & some people cant wait to watch things.

If its reasonable i'll buy it.

reply to post by stumason


You're assuming that everyone has the ability and the desire to want to stream a movie at home and ditch the cinema altogether. And that would be a completely wrong assumption.

My wife and I like to go OUT to the movies - we enjoy the theater experience. The screen is big, the sound system is awesome and it's a chance to get away from the kids and have a date night. You know - getting out of the house? There are times when we do stream movies to the XBox 360 through Netflix, but we enjoy the theater experience just as much.

reply to post by sos37


I'm not assuming anything, if you re-read I said they should give people the choice. Yes, a trip to the cinema is nice, but I have managed it only twice this year when me and the missus clubbed together to treat the kids. Not once have I been to see any of the movies I wanted to due to the extreme cost. (Almost a tenner each and thats not including any food, drinks etc, which is extortion in itself. £5.99 for some poporn? £4.99 for some fizzy drink? £3.99 for a bag of M&M's which I can buy myself for a pound?)

If those movies were available for say, £4.99 for a limited time license (say 1 week), which can be done, then I'd probably plump for that and watch it on my HD Tv at home, streamed from my PC. Those that still want to go to the cinema for the big screen appeal can, but those that cannot are not cut out.

EDIT: Also, I do not understand why those that can get broadband, don''t. I know people who still use dialup! The Government bangs on about improving the networks when the networks already, for the vast majority of the country, can support broadband. I have 50Mbs from Virgin and it's not expensive.


[edit on 26/8/09 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
Maybe people wouldn't have to download films and Tv shows illegally if they didn't overprice at the cinema, or actually enabled people to stream the shows themselves at home.

I guess I'm quasi-defending the copyright holders here, but what I think the main offense is, is not watching the contraband .. but distributing it.